Redact personally identifiable information by replacing email addresses and phone numbers with [REDACTED] while preserving all other text.
Replace every email address and phone number in the input text with [REDACTED], leaving all other text unchanged. [conductor: verified stochastic command]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context — everything not matching an email or phone is left byte-for-byte unchanged, and the placeholder is the literal '[REDACTED]' — but it omits whether output is deterministic, whether it reports a replacement count, and it appends an unexplained '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' tag that is noise for a straightforward text substitution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core sentence is front-loaded, single, and waste-free. The trailing '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' bracket does not earn its place and slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter text transform with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the input, the transformation, the placeholder used, and the guarantee about untouched text. Only reporting behavior (count of redactions, edge formats) is left unspecified, which is minor here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description names it functionally ('the input text'), so an agent knows exactly what to pass. It still adds no constraints on size, encoding, or behavior with malformed input, so it is adequate rather than rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Replace') plus the exact targets (email addresses and phone numbers) and the replacement token, and it is trivially distinguishable from siblings like extract_emails, extract_contact and normalize_phone, which find or transform rather than redact. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose strongly implies when to use it (sanitizing text before sharing), but the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives — e.g. it doesn't say to use extract_contact when you only need to locate contacts rather than mask them. Usage is left to inference from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.